Harems Pay Off For Muslims – Polygamy Now Legal In Britain, Canada

We were cruising around the internet this morning a saw that Keltruth Blog has commented upon the statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury that Sharia Law is unavoidable in Britain. (link here)

Well, aside from Hindus, Christians, Jews, atheists, artists, nature photographers, homosexuals, drinkers, intellectuals and women, we can’t possibly imagine anyone objecting to such a sensible suggestion.*

Then we discovered that Sharia Courts are actually up and active in Britain as the police and judges often cede the authority of British law to these kangaroo courts. Are Muslim women ever pressured into taking marital or spousal abuse cases before a group of men in a Sharia court instead of before the laws of the land? Ha! Do fish swim?

Check it out here: The British sharia “crime” court in a cafe where knifemen walk free

But the most interesting find of the morning is that polygamy is now effectively legal in both the Britain and Canada (click on the country for details). If you are a Muslim on the dole (welfare) with multiple wives in either of these countries, the authorities will knowingly pay larger sums for your extra wives.

If that doesn’t make polygamy legal, I don’t know what does.

Hmmmm…. Not a bad life for a man with four wives: multiple welfare payments, always someone to keep the house clean no matter what else is happening, absolute obedience otherwise the husband has the right and duty to physically discipline his wives, and certainly no wants for companionship on a chilly night.

Yup, I can see why some men might want to convert to Islam.

Me? Well, I can see some of the ….

Oh… wait a minute…

Yes Dear? Oh, I haven’t fixed that door yet. Oh, ok. sorry. yes, I’ll do it now sweeties… No, I didn’t do that either. Yes, I know you’re having some of the girls over later. Ok, ahhh, sure I’ll change his nappies. Yes, I hear his crying. Ok. I’m coming now…

Um… Look, I’ll have to finish this article later…

* I plagiarized that paragraph from another website The Religion of Peace

Advertisements

24 Comments

Filed under Barbados, Crime & Law, Religion

24 responses to “Harems Pay Off For Muslims – Polygamy Now Legal In Britain, Canada

  1. PiedPiper

    As a Canadian, this sickened me when I read it in newspaper yesterday and let me further explain just how pathetic this situation is. It is coming up to TAX time here in Canada and apparently these Muslims with 4 wives and assorted children can claim all of them as “dependants” on their tax returns which entitles them to big fat tax credits (refunds).
    Britain and Canada are becoming farcical in bending over backwards to accommodate what is considered illegal in both countries (having more than one wife) and then making it profitable for them to do so.
    Canada is a nation that was built by immigrants……..the Chinese who through hard manual labour, built our railroads…..the Portuguese and Italians who provided us with carpenters and bricklayers to build homes…….. the English, Scottish and Irish who opened up shops to provide food and sundries…..West Indians who became porters on the trains and staffed the hotels. This was in a time before welfare was available and you survived through hard work and your own gumption.

  2. Fishpot

    Piedpiper said it all. I would like to see them take that crap to the Americans or Austrailians.

  3. Hants

    BFP take note. You asked and you will be given…..

    “Ms. Maxine McClean, minister of state in the prime minister’s office, had been given special responsibility for fast-tracking new freedom of information and integrity legislation, as well as a code of conduct for ministers and also “possible adjustments” to the defamation act so that it could no longer be used “as a sword” to keep individuals from commenting on the actions of people in public life.

    Seems to me that David Thompson is LEADER.

    ****************

    BFP says,

    Hmmmm…. well.

    The code of conduct was supposed to be in place from day 1… as was the declaration of assets.

    That was the promise.

    We are nervous, but will await the Throne Speech on Tuesday.

    (Hey… If Owen Arthur made a speech on the same day, would it be the “Thrown Speech” ?? 😉

  4. Rumplestilskin

    I really cannot see how exceptions to either the jurisdiction of the courts nor the tax regime in either country can be justified.

    If one religious group or ethnic group receives special treatment, then others should also.

    For example, as some restafarians claim, marijuana is used for religious meditation, should they not also be exempt from censure under the laws in respect of its use?

    As you rightly point out, in countries where Muslim law dominates, exceptions are not accepted.

  5. Hants

    BFP…Outside of “sensationalism” you should be pleased at Thompson’s actions so far.
    Give a some credit.

    It is clear to me that Thompson is doing more than you asked for.

    This statement in particular differentiates him from the previous administration.

    “also “possible adjustments” to the defamation act so that it could NO LONGER be used “as a SWORD” to keep individuals from commenting on the actions of people in public life.”

    I think he is making the right moves. It is better to let the people speak their minds than having them “living in fear.”

    Now that we have seen what happened to O. Seemore Arthur, there is a clear understanding that Bajans doan mek sport. They suffer in silence but will get you in the end.

  6. Rumplestilskin

    Archbishop Rowan Williams was correct however, in his interpretation that Sharia is already being used in specific cases in lieu of legislated or common law in the UK.

    I distinctly remembering a situation last year when the British Police stepped back and let the matter be dealt with under Sharia.

    My perception then was that the Police thought that as it was a community matter it could be dealth with by the relevant community.

    So, the Archbishop is expressing what is being accepted as rule of law. Him speaking out now will ensure that the issue is dealt with, rather than allow to creep in subtly.

  7. PiedPiper

    Police Officers in most countries, as a rule, do not get involved in civil matters (i.e. property disputes or contract violations) and that is why we have Civil Courts where these matters are dealt with. Sharia Law seeks to usurp the role of the Civil Courts and should not be allowed to do so.

  8. Hants

    I find it hilarious that politicians here in Canada have to wear robes,headdress,walk barefoot when entering Mosques etc.

    Now this polygamy thing has surfaced. Why should it be legal for Muslims to have 4 wives but illegal for everyone else?

    Laws should apply equally to all citizens.
    Prehaps this logic is too simplistic for Multi-Cultural Canada.

  9. PiedPiper

    Hants, I don’t know when Canada started to lose it’s way. Earlier immigrants were expected to learn English, work hard and assimilate and yet at the same time they were given the right to retain their culture if they chose. To retain one’s culture did not mean bring all of your old hatreds and politics and it certainly didn’t mean that you would not abide by the laws of this land.
    Our Government and those of other countries need to get up off their collective asses and regain control of it’s immigration policies before it is too late.

  10. It’s called being politically correct………. learning English, honest hard work seems to be a thing of the past.
    Sadly enough, politicians are too whimpy to make a difference,

  11. GoFigure

    I read the article from the said archbishop and could not believe such nonsense coming from his mouth.
    These apologists and sympathisers need to educate themselves from an objective point of view and know that IT IS NOT THE NATURE OF MUSLIMS TO ACCOMDATE ANYONE OR ANYTHING SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THEY ARE PERFECT AND THE REST OF THE HUMAN RACE ARE DEGENERATES.
    The true nature of a muslim is to exploit, inflitrate,assimilate whilst getting persons to accomodate their interests by having a pity party.
    There are not going to bend the laws for nonmuslims in their countries but expect us too. Let’s hope the Caribbean region doesn’t get so stupid.

  12. Justice

    I went to the Keltruth site and they have a link for something called Namepedia where I was able to check connections to various persons mentioned in various articles on this site. It so happens that the name D’Aguiar which I see is featured in the Ronja Juman matter as her maiden name is a very affluent portuguse family. The same founding family of our precious Banks beer here. Take a look at this link.
    http://www.banksdih.com/?q=about-us

  13. Justice

    It sheds new light on some questions I have personally had regarding why the Juman’s would be so cavalier about their treatment of this young woman. talk about power play. Also correct me if I am not wrong but isn’t our DPP a guyanese? Surely he knew of her family’s standing perhaps he felt using his clout locally could become a nice pay out from her family?
    Finaly to date since new government has taken office we still hear nothing of this matter in the media or from our new PM? WHY?

  14. It is interesting in this context to compare the attitude of the United States of America, where there is supposed to be constitutional Freedom of Religion.

    They would not allow the Mormon state of Utah to become a state of the Union until they outlawed polygamy.

    Despite this, polygamy still persists in small groups and men who practice it are arrested for criminal felony.

    So much for Freedom of Religion, U.S. style.

  15. P.S. For some incomprehensible reason the multiple wives in these illicit marriages are not charged for the offense, even though it does not seem as if they are unwilling co-spouses, and accept the situation with good grace.

    “Everyone is equal under the law?”

  16. Bimbro

    Britain’s a basket-case, and the only reason I post on these blogs is to try to prevent Bim from becoming another one!!!!

  17. ninemikemike

    To Deb Thomas – be realistic, you cannot have freedom of religion overrule the law of the land, or you will end up permitting human sacrifice, or is that OK by you?
    There is nothing to stop a man living with several women, or a woman with several men, but polygamy is still against the law in the UK and Canada, and any system that allows its proponents to benefit from the taxpayer, is immoral, and I think illegal, and should be tested in the courts by a taxpayers’ alliance. It is also the single most efficient way I can think of to foster resentment amongst different communities, and the UK government has clearly taken leave of its senses in this matter as in so many others.
    Bimbro is right, Britain is a basket case, now beyond the point of no return, and we must strive to make sure we don’t go down the same route.
    ALL sections of the community MUST be subject to the same laws, which must be applied rigorously without fear of favour. Failure to do this will cause the divisions I see opening up to deepen, and rather like letting a fractious child have its own way for a quiet life, allowing Muslims any special dispensations will redound to their own disadvantage eventually.

  18. bree

    This news about Muslim polygamy should be taken with a grain of salt. Articles in the Tor. Sun are usually not based on fact.
    Are there Muslim men here in Canada with more than one wife? That might be true, but it is certainly not a registered marriage. There are ways of beating the system, however, and there might be Some Muslims who are *playing the system*. But is that any different from those in other communities who also have more than one family (without the benefit of marriage)and depend on the public purse?
    In Canada, so far, no province has legalised Sharia law. Any attempt to do so has met with disapproval even among Muslims.However, the Canadian society and government must be on guard and not allow such changes in the name of political correctness.

  19. fredjones

    deb:

    i don’t know about the wives being charged with polygamy – surely it would have to be for violating a different law, as each of them is married to only one person – no?

  20. Bimmy

    wouldn’t it be something to have ay least 3 wives

  21. Pingback: Legal Polygamy Coming To Guyana? Already Legal In Canada and Britain… Is Barbados Next? « Barbados Free Press

  22. lawbuff

    Bree, YES! registered and legal multiple spouses, in Canada!
    With reference to your article regarding Polygamy in Canada:
    Two members of a Mormon splinter group were charged recently with practicing Polygamy in Bountiful, British Columbia, Canada. On has claimed religious persecution by government.

    The federal Criminal Code of Canada states:
    S. 293. Everyone who
    (a) practices or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practice
    or enter into
    (i) any form of polygamy
    (ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same
    time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage,
    or
    (b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or
    consent that purports to sanction a relationship [that is polygamous]
    is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term
    not exceeding five years.”
    This section is very general, capturing formal and informal arrangements.
    It captures cohabitation as well as marriage; and it encompasses
    both heterosexual and same sex relationships.

    However, that has changed now and Polygamy is legal in at least one Canadian province. Indeed, two different Attorney Generals of that province and at least four Family Court (Queens Bench) justices have commented and argued in public court cases that a married woman may also have same time conjugal unions. Don Morgan of the Saskatchewan Party, who is also Don Morgan Attorney General of Saskatchewan and its’ Justice Minister has commented that Saskatchewan legislation allows multiple conjugal unions and that persons do not need to formally end a marriage to be legally recognized as having other legal spouses in Saskatchewan. His argument is the same as his predecessor Attorney General. Basically, Section 51 of Saskatchewan Marital Family property Act states:

    “Rights of new spouse
    51 Where a person becomes the spouse of a person who has a spouse, the rights
    pursuant to this Act of the subsequent spouse are subject to the rights pursuant to
    this Act of the prior spouse.”

    As early as 1999 and again in 2009 different Queens bench judges have ruled that a married woman may also legally have other conjugal partners under the laws of Saskatchewan. They contend that this does not violate the Federal Criminal code that clearly does not allow plural conjugal unions to exist at same time. In both cases Saskatchewan Attorney General representatives appeared to argue in favor of multiple conjugal unions and in both cases the Federal Attorney Generals declined to appear to defend Canada’s Polygamy law.

    Canada’s Immigration rules do not allow potential immigrants to be both married and also claim another spouse, either as a cohabitation spouse or married.

    The case of Ariza v. Canada (2007) denied entry to Canada to a Muslim who might have claimed to have a wife in the Philippines and a common law cohabitant wife in Canada concurrently. The summary can be found at canlii.org under Ariza V. canada.
    Summary is:

    “[8] Further, as the appellant lives in Canada and has lived in Canada on a continual basis since 1992, and the applicant lives in the Philippines, there is no factual basis upon which to entertain the possibility that this relationship could be saved under a different classification, such as the concept of common-law marriage. The other concept created in the law in 2002 having to do with conjugal partnership is also of no help, as a conjugal relationship needs to be, by definition, an exclusive relationship. It is not open to the appellant to claim that she is in an exclusive relationship with the applicant, where he is still involved in a legal marriage with his first wife.”
    Now, The persons charged with Polygamy in Bountiful (a different town/ province in Canada)are accused of practicing Polygamy in Canada. On two fronts. One, having more than one spouse at the same time. Second, providing consent and assistance to the formation of simultaneous conjugal unions as “bishops” of the sect.

    One must query why Don Morgan as Justice Minister of Saskatchewan, in a province a short distance away from British Columbia provides unilateral consent and assists with allowing multiple conjugal unions as valid under Saskatchewan law, yet British Columbia Attorney General does not allow Polygamy; are the Attorney Generals reading the same Federal law?

    In the case of Saskatchewan Polygamy, two married women claimed to have a legal conjugal relationship with other men while still legally married. Both men denied this and said they just lived in the same house with the married women and hence had the right to not be legal spouses while the women were married to others. They argued they had the constitutional right to not be the spouse of a person that already had a spouse and they be entitled to live under a “shacked up” but not legally the spouse of a married person”. Don Morgan of the Saskatchewan Party and his constitutional lawyers argued that the women were entitled to have another spouse under Saskatchewan law, even tho they remained married to another. Morgan believes that people do not need to formally end a marriage to take other spouses. In Winik V. Saskatchewan trustee, the Queens bench judge ruled:
    “21] With respect to the first issue, the continuing marriage of Maureen Winik would not necessarily have hindered the formation of a common-law relationship with Randy Wilson. The formation of a common-law relationship does not involve the solemnization of a marriage. Rather it requires a mutual intention to enter into a permanent and exclusive matrimonial relationship”

    “To constitute a marriage valid at common law, that is, in the absence of a statute otherwise specifically providing, it is not necessary that it should be solemnized in any particular form or with any particular rite or ceremony. All that is required is that there should be an actual and mutual agreement to enter into a matrimonial relation, permanent and exclusive of all others, between parties capable in law of making such a contract, consummated by their cohabitation as man and wife or other mutual assumption openly of marital duties and obligations.”

    “As the formation of a common-law relationship does not require the solemnization of a marriage, there is no risk of violating the criminal sanction against bigamy. The formation of a common-law relationship is not hindered by the existence of a subsisting marriage. Mutual intention of the parties consummated by their conduct, perhaps with an expressive public component, is all that is required for the formation of the relationship.”
    The judge decided to make formal and legal the subsequent spousal relationship unilaterally ( providing consent and assisting)as follows:

    “[40] Maureen Winik, as the common-law spouse of Randy Wilson at the time of his decease, has standing to challenge the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of the Act.”

    Interestingly, the judge may have determined the new spouses had an exclusive and monogamous relationship, despite the fact that Winik was married and the man had also fathered a child with a different women during their cohabitation!
    You can read the case and decide for yourself.

    The question is, if it is illegal in Canada to have plural spouses in valid constitutional law, and Don Morgan and his Saskatchewan party allow same time multiple conjugal unions, why does British Columbia charge Bountiful members who have done no more? Since Osler and Blackmore ( Bountiful) are charged under the Federal Criminal Code Section 293 with having multiple conjugal relations and also performing multiple conjugal relationship consent by sanctioning plural unions, why aren’t the Saskatchewan Attorney Generals and Saskatchewan Queens Bench judges also charged with creating these plural conjugal relationships under law and assisting and consenting to them?

    It seems apparent that the Bountiful residents, Muslim immigrants and others wishing to practice Polygamy in Canada will need to live in Saskatchewan Canada to have legal Polygamous unions.

    Some other provinces in Canada allow multiple conjugal unions if they occurred in a place that allows them. Immigrants must prove their place of origin does allow Polygamy. Since Saskatchewan Canada allows simultaneous conjugal unions it seems unfair that Muslims and others are persecuted for their Polygamist religious beliefs when it is perfectly legal in parts of Canada. Charge them all or charge none as the saying goes!

  23. Canadian Polygamy commenter

    Canadian Polygamy edits: 🙂
    Saskatchewan Marital Family property Act states:

    “Rights of new spouse
    51 Where a person becomes the spouse of a person who has a spouse, (“the presiding judge will forthwith call the police and have one or all of the Polygamists charged under the laws of Canada” ) …the rights
    pursuant to this Act of the subsequent spouse are subject to the rights pursuant to
    this Act of the prior spouse.” ( And they have the right to spend five years in a federal prison) (end of edit)

  24. Pingback: The Supreme Court and Same Sex Marriage - Page 4